The Help Blog Chapters 11-14: Separate but Equal

               Throughout chapters 11-14 of the Help, Stockett really brings forward the contradiction of the fact that blacks and whites are “separate but equal” (185). In chapter 14, the white women talk about how the bathrooms are separate but they’re still bathrooms. They try and justify it by saying that it’s all the same and that no black help wants to share the bathroom with a white lady just as much as a white lady doesn’t want to share with the help. We see the contradiction with this chapter and the past ones, because the issue of the Jim Crow laws was brought up in the past. Miss Skeeter looked at the laws and was “mesmerized by how many laws exist to separate [them]” (173). Numerous rules exist to separate blacks from whites, as the Jim Crow laws displayed, and Skeeter is met with a reality she had been genuinely shielded from growing up. She knew they were different, but she never understood the lengths at which these laws existed.

                Skeeter realizes that as soon as she steps into Aibileen’s house, Aibileen stood taller. But, she couldn’t help but notice that Aibileen was still hesitant; that removing her white uniform didn’t remove the laws that controlled her life. The black neighborhood is separate, that the white women are correct about, but it is most definitely not equal. Besides the main issue of the quality of the neighborhoods and houses, there are no black police, so if something goes on and someone is hurt the white police won’t be as quick to respond and will automatically blame the fact that it’s a black neighborhood. That that stuff just goes on. The white people are discriminatory and hateful. They do not see the black people as people; they see them as workers and alive to serve the white people and to do nothing else. Looking around me today, I see so many different people. I have never once questioned the legitimacy of anyone of any other race, ethnicity, or religion. I look around me and see equals. Some of them I see as smarter, stronger, more athletic or anything, than I am. I do not judge based on color because what does it even mean to have different color skin? It means you have an identity. Then I read this book, and I just can’t imagine it—these ladies talking this way. About diseases you can get from black people if they use the same toilet as you. It greatly disturbs me, and I see it eating away at Skeeter as well.

                Skeeter is around the ladies all the time; she sees them act this way to the help so often, it becomes foreign to her if they don’t. That is why it was hard for her at first to do what she is doing now. It is so hard to stray away from something we have known our entire lives. That we have heard, seen, lived. But, Skeeter is trying and is establishing equality. She treats Aibileen and Minny with the same respect she gives everyone else, and doesn’t look at them as pathetic or feel bad for them. She looks at them with respect, not with apology. She sees truth in them and strength, more of it than she could wish to have. So maybe there is a double play on the words of the white ladies. The help, they are separate but equal. They live apart from the whites, but they are equal in mind, person, and strength. Sometimes, they are even greater. So maybe the white ladies speak a truth they have misunderstood.

The Death Penalty: DEADLINE

              Race and class have had a major effect on the death penalty. The film Deadline proves that people have been wrongly convicted for their race. One example the movie provides is David Keaton who was sentenced to death, but later released after being proven innocent of his crimes. This is such a strong example because had he not been proven innocent, he would have been killed. Murdered, just like that for a crime he did not commit because somewhere in the justice system, someone did not like that he was black. Keaton’s brother stated, “Growing up black in this state, you know, you really didn’t have a chance when it came to a crime.” This statement has sadly been proven true in many other cases as well. Black people have been constantly wrongly convicted because of the members of the jury and the media. His brother also said, “You know, they say that justice is blind, but justice really isn’t blind.” I completely agree with this statement. Justice is not blind because we are humans and we have opinions. Members of the jury are supposed to be able to put those opinions aside, but the truth of the matter is that they don’t. A juror cannot take part in a case where a white person is killed, the suspect is a black person, and they do not like black people. They simply cannot ignore their views. Race effects the determination of the death penalty, as well as law and politics.

Looking at statistics, the death penalty is greatly supported in the states where it is allowed. The reason for this is that people like the death penalty because they get revenge. People can become so distracted by their desire to get what they want and give others what they deserve that they are blinded from justice. In the United States, people look at situations of revenge with the theory of ‘an eye for an eye.’ Basically, someone should be punished in the same way for which they committed the crime; if they steal money, they have to pay back that money and spend time in jail. It’s our way of lessening the pain by knowing that they are going through the same pain we are. I think the notion of the death penalty is so widely accepted because it has been around us for so long. Also, we used to execute in much more inhumane ways than we do now. Since we have changed the way in which we execute to a more humane form, such as lethal injection, we feel the act is justifiable.

Looking at the bigger picture of the issue of the death penalty, there is a quote by Stephen Bright that reads;

“This was the third person released by the journalism students at Northwestern, and of course it doesn’t say much for our legal system when people spend sixteen years on death row for a crime they… didn’t commit. And that ultimately comes to light not because of the police or the prosecution, or the defense lawyers or the judicial system, but because a journalism class at Northwestern took it on as a class project to see whether or not these people were guilty or not. You know, if those students had taken chemistry that semester, these folks would have been executed.”

            This quote shows just how easily the death penalty can be unjust and how easily innocent people are proven guilty on death row. A journalism class of college students proved the innocence of death row inmates; something that the Constitution of the United States could not prove. There truly is a problem there. These innocent people on death row sit there day after day, awaiting their death and being aware of their innocence and their inability to prove it. It took unbiased students with the desire to be true and just to the wrongfully convicted people to prove their innocence. To prove innocence that should never have been deceived. Bright also talks about how had the students taken a different class, the innocent people on death row would have been executed. It took chance for the inmates to get out; the chance that those students had chosen that class and then chosen to write on death row inmates. Hours in court with evidence, a selected jury and judge and all it took was the chance that those students would be put in the same class together? There truly is something wrong with our justice system.

The Death Penalty: Is it justifiable?

                 During class we have discussed the death penalty and its justifications, or lack thereof. There are stages in a court case that help determine whether or not someone will receive the death penalty.  Some of the stages that protect the rights of the accused are that they are innocent until proven guilty; there is a stage where the jury decides whether or not there is enough proof to accuse someone before even deciding whether or not they should receive the death penalty, which is called a criminal hearing. They have to be determined guilty without a reasonable doubt. After determining guilt or innocence, the jurors are tested to see whether or not they can choose if the accused should receive the death penalty without bias towards the accused, the prosecutor or their opinion of the death penalty. During this decision, the jury is required to consider the defendants background such as traumatic incidents or childhood, or some form of mental retardation. The defendant is also protected in these stages by allowing for there to be a new trial if the accused felt there was not sufficient evidence or that there was “juror misconduct,” which is when the jury favors one side. If they don’t want a new trial, the defendant can appeal or try to get clemency in order to not receive the death penalty. In my opinion, all of these stages do help to determine that a person is guilty. There is no question when there is the rule of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury is required to not convict someone if they are even the slightest bit unsure. While it is difficult to prove sometimes whether or not a jury is favoring one side of the case, the defendant does have options to be fairly judged.

                If a defendant is proven guilty and given the death sentence there are several ways in which they can be executed. In my opinion, being executed by hanging or by firing squad are very inhumane. Sometimes, when hung, their neck does not fully break and they slowly die by asphyxiation. When killed by a firing squad, the shooter can sometimes miss the heart, by intention or by accident, and the prisoner would then slowly bleed to death. Not only are these methods inhumane, but they are unnecessary. I would say both of these should be considered cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment because we have the technology needed to execute people in an efficient and humane way, such as lethal injection.

                I looked at several states for their information on their death penalty and found that Illinois does not have a death penalty. Since 1976, only 12 people have been executed versus 475 executions in Texas who has the death penalty. In Texas, out of the 321 people on Death Row, only 10 are women. This is very interesting, but at the same time, understandable. People tend to sympathize with women more than with men. What really strikes me is that Texas has a murder rate of 5 per 100,000 and Illinois is higher with a murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000. Illinois method is injection if they were ever to use the death penalty, and it is interesting that Missouri’s method is by injection or gas and it is the choice of the prisoner as to which they will receive. In comparison to Texas, Missouri has a murder rate of 7 per 100,000, yet only 68 people have been executed since 1976 and there are currently 50 people on death row. Part of this that the statistics don’t always take into account is that there is a big population difference between Texas and Missouri. The one thing that remains consistent in all states is that there are more men than women on death row.

                Looking further at Illinois, their death penalty requirements include felonies, killing children, murdering with intention and a plan, killed in order to obtain money or prevent the victim from testifying, if the murderer injured the victim to the point of death, the victim was a disabled person, and even if the intentions of the killer were terrorism. I do think that these statues of the death penalty are justifiable because they all require for the killer to have an intention to kill, to harm someone incapable of defense, or in order to have personal gain. All of those acts listed are reason enough for someone to be subject to the death penalty. However, I can see as to why these statues would make the death penalty questionable in Illinois and eventually made them abolish it altogether. One reason is that the death penalty cannot be biased towards putting those to death who were disabled or children, because any other person killed, such as an adult, is of equal value. Also, it is hard to prove intention, which is what a lot of the statues are based on. Lastly, killing someone by injuring them to death may go against intention. If the intention was to break their arm by hitting them with a baseball bat and they then fell down stairs which broke their neck and killed them, is it really the person with the baseball bat’s fault? Their intention was to break their arm, not kill them. So are they guilty or not? I think that question was brought up a lot in cases, which was another cause for Illinois to no longer use the death penalty.

                Something that is interesting is that in all of the states, the largest race to be executed is white which is usually presumed to be black. However, the largest race of victims whose perpetrators were executed is also white, meaning that courts are more sympathetic towards white victims and more likely to send whoever killed them to death. Looking at a different chart, there were 17 white people sent to death for killing a black person, versus the 255 black people sent to death for killing a white person. These statistics are another reason why Illinois and other states no longer have the death penalty; there is a prepositioned bias in deciding whether or not to give someone the death penalty.

Drug Testing in Schools

                The two court cases we have recently studied, Vernonia School District v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, argued over the approval of drug testing in schools. In Vernonia v. Acton, the court held that a drug policy should be established because of the growing drug problem in their school. The parents of the students at the school approved of the policy Vernonia wanted to put in place, and the school felt it was acting in a way “to protect their health and safety.” In my opinion, the implementation of this drug policy was acceptable, because the school was directly reacting to a problem that was becoming worse in their own school. Vernonia was applying its rule only to students participating in athletics, which I think is acceptable, because drugs can have a very negative and harmful effect when doing athletics. All students participating in athletics know they will be drug tested before the start of the season, and will possibly be randomly tested throughout. The drug policy in which Vernonia has adopted is completely understandable, because they are applying it to the students who can be directly affected by drugs physically, and their whole team will notice when a player is not performing to their full ability. Also, Vernonia is doing the right thing by applying the policy to athletes because they are students who peers look up to. If they are not doing drugs because of the tests, other students may follow.

                In Board of Education v. Earls, the court held that their drug policy was constitutional and could apply to all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities. I do not necessarily disagree with the policy being applied to all competitive activities and not just athletics, but I do disagree with the board’s reasoning. Their justification for the policy is that “’drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today.’” Basically, the school board is saying that because there are drug problems in other places, they exist in their school. This is a false assumption that cannot be accepted, considering that in Vernonia, their drug policy applied because they had problems within their own school building. Part of the argument for the policy was that “the Fourth Amendment does not require a finding of individualized suspicion.” Basically, this statement is supporting the board’s idea that because drugs are a problem in society, it is a problem in their school. Another way the board of education tries to justify their stance, is by making the urine test ‘more private.’ They are having the boys now sit in an enclosed stall when taking the test instead of in a urinal that’s not enclosed. To me, that means nothing and they might as well just stand at the urinal. They cannot justify putting this policy in place by letting the boys be enclosed instead of stand at a urinal.

                I agree with the ruling in the court case Safford Unified School District v. Redding. During this case, a 13-year-old girl was strip-searched when a classmate claimed the prescription-level ibuprofen she possessed was given to her by her classmate, Redding. During the case, the strip search was found unconstitutional when appealed to the Supreme Court, but the officials were found “immune from liability.” I agree with this ruling, because it was completely unnecessary to strip search a girl to her underwear and then even check under those all because another student claimed it was hers after that student had gotten in trouble. The student did not suggest that Redding currently possessed any more ibuprofen, so there was no reason for the search.  

                Another article talked about dogs sniffing through school lockers to try and find drugs. To be honest, that is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. There was only marijuana found originally in one locker a month at the most. That is not reason to need a dog to sniff through an entire school building to find drugs. According to the school, there have been no further findings of drugs since the few incidents. I do not believe that there were no more findings because of the dog. It was because students got more smart and figured out ways for the dog not to find the drugs either by not bringing them to school or storing them in a way that eliminates their smell. While superintendents claim that the ‘drug dog’ isn’t used to get students arrested; just for the elimination of drugs in schools, I do not agree with the practice of having a dog sniff out the school. Also, the sniffing dogs have led to several false accusations against students when there were no drugs present. In one incident, fifteen students’ classes and education were disrupted when they were pulled out to be interrogated. Only one of them was in possession of marijuana.

Bad Things Happen to the Innocent Ones: The Help - blog 2

            Over this past week, I read chapters 7-11 in the Help. The focus of these chapters was on how the help raise the children, and then they turn out to be the same way as their mothers and fathers. We see this relationship between the help and the kids develop through Mae Mobley and Aibileen. When trying to teach Mae Mobley to go to the bathroom on the toilet, Aibileen really struggles with handling the situation. As she described, most of the white mothers would sit on the toilet and show their kids how to do it; to set an example, but Miss Leefolt refused. I don’t know which would have been better; for Aibileen to sit on the toilet in the house to show her, or to bring her out to her own toilet like she did. I think it would have been much better for Aibileen to show Mae Mobley in the house, because it would have avoided the problem of Mae Mobley constantly wanting to go on Aibileen’s toilet. However, this is one of the issues that gets brought up; Mae Mobley doesn’t know better. She doesn’t realize that the toilet outside is only for Aibileen, and when she gets spanked by her mother for going to the bathroom in there, she doesn’t understand what she did wrong. This shows the issue of how children’s innocence gets taken away when they don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. It takes away the desire to explore that children have because, as Aibileen described about Mae Mobley, “she don’t know what she is yet” (92).

            Aside from the issue of the innocent children are raised in a confusing manner that ultimately makes them act the same way towards their own children, these chapters brought up how bad things happen to good people. We are introduced to a new character, Robert, who was one of Treelore’s friends before he died. The young boy told Aibileen that he would be coming by to mow her lawn, as he always did without her asking since Treelore was no longer there to do so. Soon after, Aibileen found out that after accidentally using the white bathroom at a store, he was chased and beaten blind. Aibileen was in shock as Franny Coots said “poor Louvenia. I don’t know why the bad have to happen to the goodest ones” (101). I completely agree with Franny; Robert was a sweet and caring boy who helped Aibileen find some peace after the loss of her son, even by doing the simplest of things for her like mowing her lawn. He made one innocent mistake, and it cost him the ability to see for the rest of his life. This is exactly how the book shows that the innocent and the good people are the ones the bad things happen to. I think that while it is wrong, there is a reason behind it whether it is conscious or not. If another kid had been chased and beaten to blindness who was constantly looking for trouble, then people wouldn’t have as strong of a reaction. It was the fact that it happened to a caring, good boy that made what happened even worse. The same goes for Mae Mobley; she was spanked by her own mother for trying to please her by going to the bathroom, and unknowingly using Aibileen’s when she didn’t know the difference; had Mae Mobley been older and doing it to purposefully annoy her mother, we wouldn’t feel the pain we do for Mae Mobley.

            I love this book; it captures simple ideas in a complex way that makes them so much more meaningful. Stockett has already showed me how nature, nurture and innocence can affect people’s lives. I can not wait to read what she will teach me next.

Searches and Seizures: New Jersey v. TLO

            During the past week in class, we have discussed how the protection against searches and seizures actually applies. In my opinion, it barely does. In the case New Jersey v. TLO, a girl is caught smoking in a bathroom with another girl. At fourteen years old, upon refusing to admit to smoking, her bag is searched on the spot to find any evidence of the smoking incident. While looking in her purse, the principal finds rolling papers and automatically assumes they have to do with marijuana. He then searches further to find actual marijuana in her bag. In my opinion, this search was completely unreasonable and did not follow the rules of searches and seizures.

            When going to look in the bag, the principal was focused on only finding evidence of TLO smoking. The fact that he saw the rolling papers did not whatsoever allow him to continue his search. The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case argued that the “relative ease with which teachers can apply the probable-cause standard” was unreasonable. I agree with their argument that by allowing this search, it is extremely easy for any teacher to decide to randomly search a student because they were ‘suspicious.’ The dissenting opinion also argued that “the search for evidence of the smoking violation that was completed when Mr. Choplick (the principal) found the pack of cigarettes—was valid.” I agree with this statement; the search was following rule by searching for the pack of cigarettes, but Mr. Choplick soon violated it when he went further.

            I greatly disagree with the overall ruling of the court, which was in favor of the school, not only because it violated the searches and seizure amendment, but because it violated morale on many levels. The search only showed TLO, and other students, that she was not protected in a place where she was supposed to feel most safe. As the dissenting opinion argues, “if the Nation’s students can be convicted through the use of arbitrary methods destructive of personal liberty, they cannot help but feel that they have been dealt with unfairly.” The simplest way to put it is that it is absolutely ridiculous for the school to ask students to feel safe and protected at a place where the school can eat away at a student’s dignity by searching or questioning them all because of a simple assumption or ‘hunch.’ In my opinion, the court should have ruled in favor of TLO because the school violated her right to protection of her personal belongings and herself.

Nature v. Nurture: the Help - blog 1

            Over the past two weeks, I have started to read the book The Help by Kathryn Stockett. Stockett captured me from the first page, and it was hard to limit myself to reading only chapters one through six for this first blog. Slavery is an issue that we have learned about for years, probably starting in sixth grade. However, this is the first time I have been able to look at it from a different perspective than the history books that fed us only facts. The struggles that blacks (I was told that the correct term is no longer African Americans, and is now blacks) faced make me cringe, but it they have also has given me insight to how brave and strong these women were. One of the parts in the book that has stuck me most is the topic of having a separate bathroom for the help. In my opinion, that is outrageous. It is saying directly to someone who cooks your meals, keeps your house in one piece and practically raises your child themselves cannot use the same bathroom as you. It is ridiculous and completely tears away at the dignity that the help possesses far more of than the white people for which they are ‘employed.’

            Miss Celia is who Minny, a black woman who works as help, is employed by. What seems strange to me about Miss Celia is that she is so unsure of herself and everything in her life. I cannot figure out if she is simply ignorant, or actually cares for the help unlike the other white women in the book. She does not mind what Minny does, and even gets cooking lessons from her; showing that she looks up to and finds respect in Minny. I greatly question her character. I cannot figure out how Miss Celia would act towards Minny had she been living around the other white women we get to know in the book. Would she act in the same caring manner towards Minny as she does now? Or would she be just as rude and demeaning to her as the other women do to their help? In other words, would her nature or her nurture prevail? It is such a difficult question to answer, but I believe it is the outcome of both being imposed upon us.

Our natural reaction to people is to accept them, but to also protect ourselves. We want to see the best in people and encourage that part of them, but we always make sure we are not harmed in the process. Nurture can completely change who we are because of how we are raised. We definitely see this happening throughout Miss Skeeter’s life. She was brought up by a white mother who had help, but Miss Skeeter had a different relationship with Constantine than her mother did. Miss Skeeter saw the good in Constantine that the other women looked past. She was brought up from when she was born by Constantine, and so she learned from her. Her nurture was by her own mother, who taught her that help was necessary and that the help were lesser than the white people. But, she was also brought up by Constantine who told her with just one look that she was perfect the way she was; she encouraged her in every way that her mother did not. She grew up to respect the help, and find trouble in accepting the idea of a separate bathroom for the help. This was simply because the good side that Constantine brought out of Miss Skeeter was stronger than the side her mother tried to build for her.

So far, only eighty-nine pages have told me so much. This book has already shown me the strength the help possesses, and the weakness the white women have. It has also taught me the effects of nurture and how one way someone was raised can completely overpower another based on their natural persona.